That PSL Cash Was Earmarked For Free Agency/ WTF?

[son of a vic]

Back in the late 90's, the PSL(that's stands for personal seat license for all you NASCAR fans) was stolen from Packer fans in the name of staying competitive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't fans expect the team to be at or near the salary cap every year, considering the huge amount of money the Organization is sitting on?
Season ticket holders are getting screwed, but theys ain't gettin' kissed.Either use the money, or give it back to the people that got swindled and suckered into believing big free agent signings were going to happen on a yearly basis. Ted has got to get better at using the cash at his disposal, that was not given to the Packers to put in the bank.
If I was a season ticket holder, I would sell my tickets for every game to the highest bidder, and make as much money as I could, and put it in my bank. And I would do that every year they were drastically under the cap.

[Rastak]

Back in the late 90's, the PSL(that's stands for personal seat license for all you NASCAR fans) was stolen from Packer fans in the name of staying competitive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't fans expect the team to be at or near the salary cap every year, cosidering the huge amount of money the Organization is sitting on?
Season ticket holders are getting screwed, but theys ain't gettin' kissed.Either use the money, or give it back to the peaople that got swindled and suckered into believing big free agent signings were going to happen on a yearly basis. Ted has got to get better at using the cash at his disposal, that was not given to the Packers to put in the bank.
If I was a season ticket holder, I would sell my tickets for every game to the highest bidder, and make as much money as I could, and put it in my bank. And I would do that every year they were drastically under the cap.


SOV, you funny guy.

I think it has nothing to do with free agency but more to do with a good product on the field. Be that free agency or draft or trades.

BTW, wasn't the PSL's in the 2000s and not the 1990s?

[son of a vic]

I'm pretty sure it was 98' or 99', but I could be mistaken. I do however vividly remember the Packer brass saying things like "in order to survive", to enable us to stay competitive, to resign or own players" Oh, like Ahman Green? What a load!

[RashanGary]

Then don't go to the games, it's that simple.

In two years when Favre is gone and Thompson still has a competitive, playoff caliber team in tact we can talk about this again. As for now, you have legitimacy because nobody knows what might happen. In a few years when history can do the talking, you will lose any relevance you think you have.

[Rastak]

I'm pretty sure it was 98' or 99', but I could be mistaken. I do however vividly remember the Packer brass saying things like "in order to survive", to enable us to stay competitive, to resign or own players" Oh, like Ahman Green? What a load!


I vividly remember people going apeshit because they had 10 seats and the Pack wanted (I'm totally guessing here) $2500 or so per ticket for the PSL



OUCH!!!!!!!!

As a Viking season ticket holder I may end up in the same boat.


As for the product, for Green Bay it was up and down...for my Vikes it was fairly bad. I'm being kind....

[MJZiggy]

The fact of the matter is that whether we like it or not, Brett Favre has long been a money maker for this team. When he retires, the team revenue will slip. Should we slide into another losing stretch, revenue will not drop off like it will with other teams, but licensing fees for apparel and other merchandise will not be what it is with the sale of Favre jerseys. Look at the stadium once and see what number the crowd is wearing. The seat licenses were never intended to pay for player acquisition in free agency. The were supposed to help the team financially in economic downturn because regardless of what the salary cap is and despite the revenue that the club would ever get in revenue sharing (right now the team has to PAY in revenue sharing), the Packers still have to be able to actually pay the players as well as the coaching staff and run the facilities. Yes it is a money-making venture now, and the seats will always be full, but the seat licenses were intended to keep the team in the position of having to pay the revenue sharing rather than depend on it. It helps your team thrive and that's what we all want isn't it?

[pbmax]

I guarantee you that every year, if you look at actual cash outlays, the Packers have been outspending the cap. Don't get caught up in the accounting goofiness that is the team cap number.

Cash spent each year is a better measure of where your PSL money went.

But didn't the Packer PSL money go to pay for improving the stadium? It was Bud Selig who told people that the tax would lead to a bigger payroll. Which it did, after he sold the team.


Back in the late 90's, the PSL(that's stands for personal seat license for all you NASCAR fans) was stolen from Packer fans in the name of staying competitive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't fans expect the team to be at or near the salary cap every year, considering the huge amount of money the Organization is sitting on?
Season ticket holders are getting screwed, but theys ain't gettin' kissed.Either use the money, or give it back to the people that got swindled and suckered into believing big free agent signings were going to happen on a yearly basis. Ted has got to get better at using the cash at his disposal, that was not given to the Packers to put in the bank.
If I was a season ticket holder, I would sell my tickets for every game to the highest bidder, and make as much money as I could, and put it in my bank. And I would do that every year they were drastically under the cap.

[son of a vic]

The PSL funds were never put towards the stadium. The Packers do not own the stadium.

[RashanGary]

Great post Ziggy. Do you work for the Packers?

[son of a vic]

"GregJennings"------Then don't go to the games, it's that simple. -----

"In two years when Favre is gone and Thompson still has a competitive, playoff caliber team in tact we can talk about this again. As for now, you have legitimacy because nobody knows what might happen. In a few years when history can do the talking, you will lose any relevance you think you have."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not a freakin' clue what your point is.

[son of a vic]

"MJZiggy"--"The fact of the matter is that whether we like it or not, Brett Favre has long been a money maker for this team. When he retires, the team revenue will slip. Should we slide into another losing stretch, revenue will not drop off like it will with other teams, but licensing fees for apparel and other merchandise will not be what it is with the sale of Favre jerseys. Look at the stadium once and see what number the crowd is wearing. The seat licenses were never intended to pay for player acquisition in free agency. The were supposed to help the team financially in economic downturn because regardless of what the salary cap is and despite the revenue that the club would ever get in revenue sharing (right now the team has to PAY in revenue sharing), the Packers still have to be able to actually pay the players as well as the coaching staff and run the facilities. Yes it is a money-making venture now, and the seats will always be full, but the seat licenses were intended to keep the team in the position of having to pay the revenue sharing rather than depend on it. It helps your team thrive and that's what we all want isn't it?"


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps that thriving thing could happen if they use the money at their disposal, courtesy Packer fan.

[the_idle_threat]

The PSL funds were never put towards the stadium. The Packers do not own the stadium.

You are mistaken. Although the team does not own the stadium, the team has paid for stadium renovations, in part or in full, since the stadium was built. The PSL money was used for that purpose.

The source is here: http://law.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/site.pl?2130&pageID=2209

It's a very interesting page of info on all of the stadiums in the NFL.

Team: Green Bay Packers

Principal Owner: Community owned since 1921
Year Established: 1919
Team Website
Most Recent Purchase Price ($/Mil): N/A
Current Value ($/Mil): $756
Percent Change From Last Year: +24%

Stadium: Lambeau Field
Date Built: 1957
Facility Cost (millions): $.960
Percentage of Stadium Publicly Financed: 100%
Facility Financing: Original construction cost shared by the city and the team. The stadium has been expanded seven times between 1961 and 2001, all paid for by the team. In 2001, a $295 M renovation began and was completed in time for the 2003 season, making Lambeau Field one of the premier facilities in the NFL. Public funding for the renovation totaled $169 M through a .50% sales tax. While private funding totaled $126 M through seat licenses ($92.5 M), public stock offering ($20.5 M), and a loan from the NFL ($13 M).

[MJZiggy]

Or that thriving thing might work better if they have the cash available to them when they find need for it? Every team has ups and downs. It's pretty much inevitable and spending money on free agents is no guarantee that it won't. Seat licenses were never intended to pay for free agents. They were intended to keep the team viable no matter the economy and the dip it will take when we are no longer selling Favre jerseys at a record pace. If the country falls into a recession and people can no longer afford to buy merchandise at the rate they are now or rent out the Atrium for events, the team is still ok.

[RashanGary]

My point is that your main complaint, the packers not spending all of their cap space in FA, will look idiotic.

The Packers are not wasteing any cap space. It will get spent. We have to push it forward now becuase Sherman only got a couple core guys through the draft but in a few years we'll be spending that extra money we are pushing forward now.

Guys like Collins, Corey Williams, Greg Jennings, Aaron Rodgers *maybe*, Colledge, Poppinga, Spitz, Barnett ect....will be getting paid and using that money.

UFA is a grossly overpriced market. It's like paying 20% over bluebook value on a car but going out and buying 3 cars anyway. It's just not the best way to maximize your money.

Is building through the draft the fastest way to get to the top? No. But it's the surest way. Multiple articals have been written on the topic, all stating that FA hasn't been an important part to winning teams in recent history. Dig through the articals. None of the mention how impactfull FA's have been on their teams. Harvey had a great one he put together himself but others were written nationally

[MJZiggy]

(Well I have read about Edgerrin James' impact on the Cardinals... :? )

[Rastak]

UFA is a grossly overpriced market. It's like paying 20% over bluebook value on a car but going out and buying 3 cars anyway. It's just not the best way to maximize your money.



Is that the goal of the NFL, to maximise your money though?

[RashanGary]

I'll do my best to explain my view Rastak. Give me a moment.

[Lurker64]

Better you save your cap money in a down year so you can spend, spend, spend in a good year than just to spend up to the cap just for the sake of doing so every year. The teams that are in good position and are able to sign the premier free agents this year are able to do so because they spent moderately in the past.

I don't know exactly who's going to be a FA next year, but I've heard it's supposed to be a pretty good class so I wouldn't be upset at all if we kept it low key in free agency.

You can't shoot the moon with a high-caliber player that you know would make an immediate impact if you spend up to the cap every year. Personally, I would prefer that the Packers do what it takes to be the best team they can be, rather than just spend some money because they feel obligated to.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

My point is that your main complaint, the packers not spending all of their cap space in FA, will look idiotic.

The Packers are not wasteing any cap space. It will get spent. We have to push it forward now becuase Sherman only got a couple core guys through the draft but in a few years we'll be spending that extra money we are pushing forward now.

Guys like Collins, Corey Williams, Greg Jennings, Aaron Rodgers *maybe*, Colledge, Poppinga, Spitz, Barnett ect....will be getting paid and using that money.

UFA is a grossly overpriced market. It's like paying 20% over bluebook value on a car but going out and buying 3 cars anyway. It's just not the best way to maximize your money.

Is building through the draft the fastest way to get to the top? No. But it's the surest way. Multiple articals have been written on the topic, all stating that FA hasn't been an important part to winning teams in recent history. Dig through the articals. None of the mention how impactfull FA's have been on their teams. Harvey had a great one he put together himself but others were written nationally

Your right, that's why we should use the eagles strategy, which is sign a guy to an extension as soon as he shows some potential. The Eagles never have free agents.

[Rastak]

I'll do my best to explain my view Rastak. Give me a moment.


No problem.....it's an interesting discussion for sure. In the early days I was way more concerned with player prices, but with the current state of the NFL I worry far less. Unless you are pressd against the cap....I'm not worried....

[RashanGary]

Let's say me and you start out in the NFL as GM's. We get expansion teams to build. I know what fun.

I'll start with your team with your goal in mind "get the best players" and "value" won't be as high of a priority as it is with my team.

We both get the benefits of getting players from each team like they did with Carolina and Jax so we have a good base. Let's say we're equal and we're somewhere in teh middle of the league as far as total talent.


Year 1

We'll start our hypothetical from season 2 and we both have an excess of 25 million. You want to get better. You're an average team now and you have some positions that can be upgraded on the UFA market. You know that it's more expensive to sign a UFA than it is to sign a RFA but your goal is to be the best team you can be. You want to win. You sign 5 FA's and 4 of them turn out to be better than what you had. The other one get's injured. You do get better. Your team wins 9 games and just misses the playoffs because there are many teams like the Patriots or Colts who are stacked with talent and you just weren't good enough to be the best of 32. You go into year 3 with 10 million in cap space.

My turn. I have a really good draft. I fill 2 starting holes that way. I take a cautious approach to UFA. I sign two FA's to fill the worste holes on my team. I put a ton of recources adn time into finding street FA's and undrafted FA's. I bring in a bunch of competition and take the best of what I find. With the rest of my $$, I front load some deals and extend my own. I'm not as good as you but I win 7 games with a young roster but they just made too many mistakes. On the bright side, one of those street FA's turns out to be a real player like Jenkins. I go into the next season with 25 mil.


Year 2

You have 10 million to spend and again you have an average draft. You draft on need and fill your biggest hole but don't get much else in teh way of starters. You go into UFA with the goal to get better. You find 3 guys who will help your team. You want 5 but you can't afford it this year. You borrow a little from the future to stay under the cap by giving big signing bonuses and you head into the next year. You win 10 games. You're a pretty good team. However, you fall short because you are competing against 31 other teams and you just wern't the best. You go into year 3 with 2 million in cap space.

I have 25 million again. I extend and frontload my RFA's again and have a really good draft. I take a cautious approach to UFA and sign a couple mid level guys to patch the worste holes on my team like FB on the Packers now. I head into the next year and a bunch of my young guys from the year before start contributing because I drafted so well. My new draft contributes as well but I'm pretty young still and we make some mistakes. We go 9-7 but we make to many mistakes and just miss the playoffs. I have 25 million going into the next year.


Year 3

You have 2 mil in space and two of your better guys are up for contracts. You can only afford to keep 1. You lose the other in UFA. You don't have money to spend in UFA but you some real holes to fill. You start digging through the street FA's but you can't find a decent starter. I on the other hadn only used UFA to fill my desperate holes. I never overused it or went over the top so it's different. YOu end up winning 6 games because you can't prevent pass rush or get a push in the run game. You go into the next season with almost nothing in cap space.

I have another good draft. I fill a hole with that and start developing the others. My first draft is coming up the the last year of their deals and they are worth quite a bit of money. I extend them on decnt contracts because they are still restricted. My second draft is producing and my young team is gaining experience. I do have one desperate hole because I lost a guy to a career ending injury so I fill it with UFA. I don't go over the top, but I do patch it so as not to really effect my season. I use some of that money that I pused forward. I can't push as much forward because some of my draft picks needed to get paid, but I still have alot udner the cap for the follwoing year because I am getting so much "value" from my roster. I win 11 games with my young team and but I lose in the playoffs. Everyone stars hyping my team because we're so good, so young and we are so far under the cap.

Year 4, you get the #1 pick and I win the SB.


One more angle

Let's say at the end of the year a group of well respected scouts anylizes every NFL player for what they earned that year. Naturally, the SB team is going to have the most good players so they will have teh most "value"

Lets say teh SB winning teams players worht all add up to 190 million. The cap is 100 million so they have a bunch of guys gettting underpaid.

The worste team's player value adds up to 50 million but they spent the whole 100.

How is this possible? Each team spent the same money but one team is so much better than the other. Well, one team probably drafted really well and kept resigning their guys for decent contracts. They filled desperate holes through UFA. It took them a while to build, but year after year they were oppertunistic and value concious. They eventually built a powerhouse.

The other team each preceeding year spent a ton in UFA *redskins*. They kept plugging holes and eventually it all caught up. They're cap was filled, but the players just wern't playing up to their contracts and eventually the well went dry so they couldn't push it any more.


This is the best I can do to explain it. This is why I htink TT's method is better than Shermans. However, I do understand Sherman trying to take advantage of FAvres last years of greatness so he gets a slight pass on that.

[son of a vic]

The wool that was pulled over ticketholder's eyes had " in order to remain in the upper echelon of the league" embroidered clearly in the lining. After a few years the stitches have gotten tattered and it is now up for debate what the original wording was.
They have more money in the bank now, than they ever have had before. And this after a few down years. Some will be swayed by numbers of a stat genie. Not I.

[Scott Campbell]

Were less than a week into Free Agency. The Packers haven't signed anybody yet (besides Jenkins). If you think demanding a refund on your Personal Seat License is going to help the franchise, then go for it I guess.

[son of a vic]

I'm not saying they should pay a boatload of money to one guy. They could however improve this team immensely, by signing a bunch of mid level free agents, that could make them one of the better teams in the NFC right now, while it is lacking on good teams.

[MJZiggy]

But why would you want to do that at the beginning of FA when prices are so bloated? Wouldn't it make sense to wait til the bidding wars are done and then go after the mid level guys? And with this FA class, I'd say you'd have to be really careful to make sure that who you want is actually an improvement over what you have.

[son of a vic]

Were they not way below the cap last year as well? I see a pattern here, and it's not in the best interest of joe Packer fan.

[son of a vic]

The PSL funds were never put towards the stadium. The Packers do not own the stadium.

You are mistaken. Although the team does not own the stadium, the team has paid for stadium renovations, in part or in full, since the stadium was built. The PSL money was used for that purpose.

The source is here: http://law.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/site.pl?2130&pageID=2209

It's a very interesting page of info on all of the stadiums in the NFL.

Team: Green Bay Packers

Principal Owner: Community owned since 1921
Year Established: 1919
Team Website
Most Recent Purchase Price ($/Mil): N/A
Current Value ($/Mil): $756
Percent Change From Last Year: +24%

Stadium: Lambeau Field
Date Built: 1957
Facility Cost (millions): $.960
Percentage of Stadium Publicly Financed: 100%
Facility Financing: Original construction cost shared by the city and the team. The stadium has been expanded seven times between 1961 and 2001, all paid for by the team. In 2001, a $295 M renovation began and was completed in time for the 2003 season, making Lambeau Field one of the premier facilities in the NFL. Public funding for the renovation totaled $169 M through a .50% sales tax. While private funding totaled $126 M through seat licenses ($92.5 M), public stock offering ($20.5 M), and a loan from the NFL ($13 M).


Public funding---------us, private funding---------------us, public stock offering------------us, and loan from the NFL. The Packers didn't forward a nickel from their pockets to renovate lambeau field.

[Packnut]

Then don't go to the games, it's that simple.

In two years when Favre is gone and Thompson still has a competitive, playoff caliber team in tact we can talk about this again. As for now, you have legitimacy because nobody knows what might happen. In a few years when history can do the talking, you will lose any relevance you think you have.


Since you obviously have the ability to see into the future, can you pick some huge stock winners?

[pbmax]

And there's your dagger ...



The PSL funds were never put towards the stadium. The Packers do not own the stadium.

You are mistaken. Although the team does not own the stadium, the team has paid for stadium renovations, in part or in full, since the stadium was built. The PSL money was used for that purpose.

The source is here: http://law.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/site.pl?2130&pageID=2209

It's a very interesting page of info on all of the stadiums in the NFL.

Team: Green Bay Packers

Principal Owner: Community owned since 1921
Year Established: 1919
Team Website
Most Recent Purchase Price ($/Mil): N/A
Current Value ($/Mil): $756
Percent Change From Last Year: +24%

Stadium: Lambeau Field
Date Built: 1957
Facility Cost (millions): $.960
Percentage of Stadium Publicly Financed: 100%
Facility Financing: Original construction cost shared by the city and the team. The stadium has been expanded seven times between 1961 and 2001, all paid for by the team. In 2001, a $295 M renovation began and was completed in time for the 2003 season, making Lambeau Field one of the premier facilities in the NFL. Public funding for the renovation totaled $169 M through a .50% sales tax. While private funding totaled $126 M through seat licenses ($92.5 M), public stock offering ($20.5 M), and a loan from the NFL ($13 M).

[pbmax]

Public funding---------us, private funding---------------us, public stock offering------------us, and loan from the NFL. The Packers didn't forward a nickel from their pockets to renovate lambeau field.

Now your argument is changing. Originally you were mad that PSL money wasn't making it way into the pockets of expensive players.

Now its the source of the money you object to.

All of the money is from the same source---------------us. And as a contributor, I am not worried about FA three days in.

[RashanGary]

Since you obviously have the ability to see into the future, can you pick some huge stock winners?

My view on UFA isn't some Nazareth prediction. It's the generally accepted way of conducting buisness of SB winning NFL teams. Multiple national articals related to the NFL have stated such recently. I've come to my own reasons "why" and I've stated them many times. My personal reasons "why" shouldn't really be the concern now. That is something I like to share with others who can maybe add too or contridict my stance based on something they may be seeing that I am not. The important thing you need to get thorugh your head, cerebral rat, is that all of the SB winning teams have had a very minimal part in FA in the 2 or 3 years leading up to thier ultimate success. That is what's called a FACT and if you care to share your reason as to "why", that would be great. I can't think of an explaination that could possible support the use of UFA in excess but I'm sure a cerebral thinker like yourself can defy all logic and come up with something that fits your fairy tale world. I'm guessing it's going to involve fairy's and gobblins becuase it certainly doesn't include any recent NFL history, post 1996.